E398 
.IV139 



H lUfif KHrilH!) UaiHl 111 KI U t/1 ) .7W lin 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



DDDDS03Dfi33 







' -^.^^ ' 




\.,^^^ *- 









y 0°--. >. 














'5^-.* <.<^^ ' 






0^' 






A 






'^bv 






STATE OF NEW- YORK, r/ : »^^ 



No. 215. 

IN ASSEMBLY, 

March 20, 1841. 



COMMUNICATION 

From the Governor, transmitting resolutions of the 
General Assembly of the State of Maryland in re- 
lation to the North-Eastern Boundary. 

[Referred to the committee on the judiciary.] 

EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, 
Albany, March 20, 1841. 

TO THE LEGISLATURE. 

I lay before the Legislature resolutions of the General Assembly of 
the State of Maryland, in relation to the North-Eastern Boundary, to- 
gether with a report of a select committee of that body on the subject. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 



[Assembly, No. 215.] 



LETTER 

From the Governor of Maryland, transmiting a re- 
port and resolutions of the General Assembly of 
that State, in relation to resolutions of Maine, 
Indiana and Ohio, relative to the North-Eastern 
Boundary. 



Annapolis, March Ibth, 1841. 

SIR— 

In compliance with the request of the General Assembly of Ma- 
ryland, I transmit to you a copy of their report and resolutions in rela- 
tion to the North-Eastern Boundary. 

Your obedient servant, 

WM. GRASON. 
To his Excellency the 

Governor of Neio-York. 



[Mr. Howard, of Baltimore city, from a select committee, made the 
following report :] 

The select committee to which was referred the communication from 
the Governor, enclosing resolutions of the States of Maine, Ohio and 
Indiana, have had the same under consideration, and respectfully offer 
the following 

REPORT. 

The reolutions of the State of Maine are as follows : 
" Resolved, That the patriotic enthusiasm with which several of our 
sister States the past year tendered us their aid to repel a threa- 
tened foreign invasion, demand our grateful recollection, and whilst this 
spirit of self-sacrifice and self-devotion to the national honor pervades 
the Union, we can not doubt, that the integrity of our territory will be 
preserved. 

" Resolved, That the promptness and unanimity with which the last 
Congress, at the call of this State, placed at the disposal of the Presi- 
dent, the arms and treasures of the nation, for our defence, the firmness 



4 [Assembly 

of the Executive in sustaining the action of this State and repelUng the 
charge of an infraction of the arrangement made with the British Lieu- 
tenant Ciovcrnor in March last, and charging back upon the British go- 
vernment the violation of that agreement — their decision in demanding 
the removal of the British troops now quartered upon the disputed ter- 
ritory as the only guaranty that they sincerely desire an amicable adjust- 
ment of the boundary question, aflbrd us confident assurance that this 
►Slate will not be compelled single handed to take up arms m defence of 
our territory and the national honor, and that the crisis is near, when this 
question will be settled by the national government, cither by negotiation 
or by the ultimate resort. 

" Resolved, That unless the British government, during the present 
session of Congress, make, or accept a distinct and satisfactory propo- 
sition for the immediate adjustment of the boundary question, it will be 
the duty of the general government to take military possession of the 
disputed territory ; and in the name of a sovereign State, we call upon 
the national government to fulfil its constitutional obligations to esta- 
blish the line, which they have solemnly declared to be the true bounda- 
ry, and to protect this State in extending her jurisdiction to the utmost 
limits of our territory. 

" Resolved, That we have a right to expect the general government 
will extend to this member of the Union, by negotiation or by arms, the 
protection of her territorial rights, guaranteed by the federal compact, 
and thus save her from the necessity of falling back upon her natural 
and reseiTcd rights of self-defence and self-protection — rights which 
constitutions can neither give nor take away ; but, should this confi- 
dence of a speedy crisis be disappointed, it will become the imperative 
duty of Maine to assume the defence of our State and national honor, 
and expel from our limits the British troops now quartered upon our ter- 
ritory. 

" Resolved, That the Governor be requested to forward copies of 
these resolutions to the President and Heads of Departments, and to 
the Senators and Representalivcs in Congress from this State, with a 
request to the latter to lay thcni before the respective bodies of which 
they arc members, also to the (governors of the several States with a 
request to lay them before their several Legislatures." 

The Legislatures of Ohio and Lidiana have passed resolutions respon- 
sive to the above ; expressing hopes that the dispute between the United 
iStates and Great Britain will be amicably setled, but tendering "the 
whole means and resources of the respective States to the authorities 
of the Union in sustaining our rights and honor." 

Invited by the State of Maine to express an opinion upon a subject 
deeply interesting to that State and also to the United States, the Legis- 
lature of Maryland can not do this with propriety unless after a careful 
examination into the merits of the case. The question is one which 
can not be clearly understood, without a reference to numerous State 
pa]jers, but which, when disembarrassed of the refinements which di- 
plomatic subtlety has thrown around it, is easily intelligible. It is tlie 
intention of the committee to give a succinct statement of the different 
views entertained by the governments of the United States and Great 



No. 215.] 5 

Britain, without entering into the details of the arguments by which 
they are respectively sustained, for which a volume would be requisite 
instead of the ordinary limits of a report. Nothimr, however, which 
is deemed material to a fair exposition of the case, will be inlcniionally 
omitted. Three maps arc annexed to the report, without which the 
committee could not make themselves understood. 

The second article of the Provisional Treaty of Peace, executed on 
the 30lh of November, 1782, and the second article of the Definitive 
Treaty of Peace between the United States and Great Britain, executed 
on the 3d day of September, 1783, use the same language in describing 
the boundaries of the United States, viz : " From the northwest angle 
of Nova Scotia, viz : that angle which is formed by a line drawn due 
north from the source of the St. Croix river to the highlands ; along 
the said highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves in- 
to the River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic ocean, 
to the norlhwesternmost head of the Connecticut river, &c. &c. ; and 
after tracing the boundary round to the north and west, the description 
conludes with the eastern line as follows : " East by a line to be drawn 
along the middle of the River St. Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of 
Fundy to its source, and from its source directly north to the aforesaid 
highlands which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic ocean from 
those which fall into the River St. Lawrence." 

These lines have never yet been traced and marked upon the surface 
of the earth. The northeastern corner of the United States, and north- 
western part of Nova Scotia offered few inducements to settlers, on ac- 
count of the comparative unproductiveness of the soil. The people of 
Massachusetts and Maine moved to the fertile regions of the west, and 
those who desired to settle in the British dominions, passed on to Lower 
or Upper Canada. No practical inconvenience was therefore felt by 
the want of precise knowledge as to the actual position of the boundary 
line, except on the seaboard where the population was more dense. To 
remove this difficulty, the fifth article of the treaty of 1794 recites 
" that doubts had arisen what river was really intended under the name 
of the River St. Croix, mentioned in the treaty of peace, and forming 
a part of the boundary therein described," and provides for the appoint- 
ment of three commissioners who should " be sworn impartially to ex- 
amine and decide the said question." Both nations agreed to " consi- 
der such decision as final and conclusive, so as that the same should ne- 
ver thereafter be called into question, or made the subject of dispute or 
difference between them." 

In execution of this article a Board of Commissioners was appoint- 
ed, who not only decided which was the true head of the St. Croix, but 
placed a monument there, which has iwitil the last few months been ad- 
mitted on all sides to be the place of departure in running the eastern 
boundary line of the United States. The report of Messrs. Feather- 
.«?tonhaugh and Mudge proposes to the British Government to rescind all 
its action under that treaty, alleging that the commissioners erred in 
their decision. Of that report it will be necessary to speak more par- 
ticularly hereafter, and it is alluded to here only to express the surprise 
which is felt that any public functionaries of the government of Great 



6 [Assembly 

Britain should deliberately make to iliat government such a reckless 
proposal. It is now more than forty years since that monument was 
erected under a guarantee from Great Britain that the decision should 
never thereafter be called into question or made the subject of dispute 
or dilVetence between the two nations. If the theory of Messrs. Feather- 
slonhaugh and Mudgc will not stand, consistently with the continuance 
of the monument, it is the theory and not the monument which must be 
removed. 

The Treaty of Ghent, signed on the 24th of December, 1814, in its 
fifth article, after reciting that " neither that point of the highlands, ly- 
ing due noilh from the source of the River St. Croix, and designated in 
the former treaty of peace between the two powers as the northwest 
angle of Nova Scotia, nor the northwesternmost head of Connecticut 
river, had yet been ascertained, nor that part of the boundary line be- 
tween the dominions of the two powers which extends from tlie source 
of the River St. Croix, directly north, to the above mentioned northwest 
angle of IS ova Scotia, thence along the said highlands which divide those 
rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence, from those 
which fall into the Atlantic ocean," had been surveyed, provided for the 
appointment of commissioners to ascertain and determine the points 
above mentioned, and cause the boundary to be surveyed and marked. 
If they differed in opinion, a reference of the disputed points was to be 
made "to some friendly Sovereign or State, who should be requested to 
decide on the differences which might be staled in the reports of the 
commissioners. 

In the execiUion of this duty, the joint commissioners started from 
the monument which they found at the head of the St. Croix river, and 
proceeded to run the line due north, as called for by the treaty of 1783. 
It is remarkable, that in the performance of this important service, nei- 
ther set of commissioners was furnished with the instruments necessary 
to run the line with astronomical precision. They used only a surveyor's 
compass, coixecting it by such indecisive observations of the stars as 
they were able to make w'iihout the a})pliances of accurate philosophi- 
cal instruments ; and the line which they ran has been since proved to 
be entirely wrong. A Tier proceeding in what ihcy thought to be a due 
north course for about forty miles, they came to an insulated hill, called 
Mars Hill, where the British connnissioners insisted u])on stopping ; al- 
leging, that they had found the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, and 
also the highlands which divided those rivers that empty themselves into 
the River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic ocean. 
They then turned w^cstwardly, and traced a very crooked line around 
the heads of these streams which flow into the Aroostook river, which 
discharges itself into the St. John's, and those which fall into the Atlan- 
tic rivers. This line, they said, was the northern boundary of the 
I'nited States ; and separate reports being made by the commissioners 
to the two governments, it was agreed, on the 29th day of September, 
1 827, to refer the matter to some friendly Sovereign or State, and various 
stipulations were entered into for the purpose of facilitating the decision 
of the arbiter. Mitchell's map, which is annexed to this report, is ad- 
mitted, upon both sides, to be " the map by which the framers of the 



No. 215.] 7 

treaty of 1783 are acknowledged to have regulated their joint and ofli- 
cial proceedings," and another nmap, also annexed to this report, was 
" agreed upon by the contracting parties as a dclincaliun uf tlic water 
courses and of the bounchiry lines in reference to the said waler courses, 
as contended for by each parly respectively." 

The King of the Netherlands, the selected arbiter, decided on the 
10th of January, 1831, "that he could not adjudge either of the lines 
** to one of the said parties, without wounding the principles of law and 
" equity with regard to the other," and proposed a new boundary line, 
running from the monument due north to the middle of the !St. John's 
river, up that river to the St. Francis, one of its branches, thence to its 
southwestcrnmost source, and thence due west to the line claimed by 
the United States. This proposition was, in June 1832, declined by 
the American Government. Great Britain was willing to accept it, 
but, after sometime, yielded to the wish of the United States, that the 
question should be again open for negotiation. Since that time nume- 
rous diplomatic notes have been exchanged between the two govern- 
ments, a miiuite examination of which would lead the committee too 
far from the purpose which they have in view. Great Britain first as- 
sumed the ground that an attempt to find the treaty line, was declared 
by the arbiter to be hopeless ; but afterwards agi-eed to the proposition 
of the American Government to institute a new survey, coupled how- 
ever with a condition that the commissioners should be instructed to 
consider the St. John's river, as not being one which emptied itself into 
the Atlantic ocean. It was in vain that the American Government re- 
monstrated against this, as requiring a preliminary abandonment of its 
whole argument ; the condition was insisted upon, until the disturbances 
upon the frontier in February, 1839, placed the peace of both nations in 
great peril. The latest exhibition of the state of the negotiation which 
the committee can find in the papers within their reach, is a note from 
Mr. Fox to Mr. Forsyth, containing the following extract : 

{Mr. Fox to Mr. Forsyth.) 

June 22, 1840. 
[Senate Doc. Vol. 8, 26th Congress, 1 session, No. 580.] 

" The undersigned is accordingly instructed to state officially, to Mr. 
Forsyth, that her Majesty's Government consent to the two princi- 
ples which form the main foundation of the American counter-draught, 
namely : first, that the commission to be appointed, shall be so con- 
stituted as necessarily to lead to a final settlement of the question of 
boundary at issue between the two countries ; and secondly, that in 
order to secure such a result, the convention by which the commis- 
sion is to be created, shall contain a provision for arbitration upon 
points, as to which the British and American commissioners may not 
be able to agree." 

" The undersigned is however instructed to add that there are many 
matters of detail in the American counter-draught which her Majes- 
ty's Government cannot adopt," &c. &c. 

This prospect of a final settlement is far from being satisfactory. 



8 [Assembly 

The " matters of detail" which " her Majesty's Government cannot 
adopt," may be spun out by diplomatic finesse to an inextinguishable 
length. All the practical good which Great Britain could derive from 
the ownership of the soil, she draws from its possession under the ex- 
isting temporary arrangement between the two governments. The 
road from the capital of New-Brunswick to Quebec, passes through 
the corner of the disputed territory, and the right of transit constitutes 
its chief value. As long, therefore, as Great Britain enjoys, under a 
temporary understanding, all the benefit which an ultimate settlement 
in her favor could bestow, it is her policy to protract the negotiation. 
She has all the advantages of success, without the hazard of loss. It 
is to be apprehended that " matters of detail," will be discussed until 
they become matters of substance. In the mean time, the population 
of the State of Maine is spreading over a portion of the " disputed ter- 
ritory." The geological investigations of that State have shown that the 
Aroostook river waters some of the finest lands in the State. Roads are 
constructed from the seaboard northwardly into these fertile regions, 
and settlements are extending. The danger of border conflicts is annu- 
ally increasing ; armed bodies of men aie near each other, with mutu- 
ally exasperated feelings. Men who live in the woods, enduring the 
severity of a northern winter, and follow a pursuit, pregnant with dan- 
ger to life, are apt to be constitutionally brave. This is the case with 
the lumbermen of Maine. They transport upon the snow to the banks 
of the frozen streams, the lumber which they have prepared in the fo- 
rest, and wait until those same snows, by their melting, swell the 
rivers sufficiently to float down their hardly acquired property to a mar- 
ket. This sort of life invigorates men's bodies and courage ; but en- 
dangers the peace of a disputed frontier. A chance affray which may 
happen at any time, would be likely to result in loss of life ; and if 
blood once be shed, it will be difficult if not impossible to assuage the 
popular feeling. With a strong desire to preserve peace on the part of 
the governments and people of the United States and Great Briain, still 
they are in too much danger of accidental collisions between the inhabi- 
tants of this border, which they may find themselves unable to restrain. 
A war between the United States and Great Britain is an evil greatly 
to be deprecated. It would be an arduous, bloody and long struggle. 
The eastern States, instead of holding back, would upon this boundary 
question, be the foremost in the fight. The whole northern frontier of 
tne United States, is in an inflammable condition and would cheerfully 
respond to a call of their government ; whilst upon the seaboard, the 
modern improvements in war vessels and gunnery, would spread the 
horrors of war over our extensive Atlantic coast. The peculiar situation 
of Maryland must cause its Legislature to look with great anxiety upon 
any question which is calculated to jeopard the peace of the country. 
In a question of national honor there is no room for choice or hesitation. 
Neither in the course which Great Britain has pursued in her negotia- 
tion with the U. States, nor in the multitude of disciplined troops which 
she has spread over our northern frontier, nor in the establisliment of 
a speedy communication by steam between England and the Provinces ; 
a communication which the good people of Boston have hailed with 



No. 215.] d 

such pleasure, uiiobscivanl ot the niulives wIulIi liave led to lis inlro- 
duction, can the commiltcc see any purpose but llial of resolutely main- 
taining the supremacy of Great Britain over her Norlli American Pro- 
vinces and the enjoyment of the military road between Halifax and 
Quebec. In this attitude of things, the J iCgislaturc of Maryland look upon 
the prospect before us with deep interest. The geographical position 
of our State makes it more than commonly vulnerable. We have a 
right, therefore, to express our opinions frankly to the State of Maine, 
and to the Federal Government. To do this with propriety, it becomes 
necessary to re-examine the boundary question carefully, and see 
whether national prejudices ma}^ not have influenced the opinion of the 
State of Maine as to her rights. 

The first mention of our northern boundary is foiuid in the 2d vo- 
lume of the Secret Journal of Congress, page 133, under date of Fe- 
bruary 23, 1779, in a report of a committee, of which Mr. G. Morris 
Was chairman. 

" Your committee arc of opinion that the following articles are abso- 
lutely necessary for the safety and independence of the United Slates, 
and therefore ought to be insisted on as the ultimatum of these Slates. 
1. That the bounds of the United States be acknowledged and ratified 
as follows : Northerly by the ancient limits of Canada, as contended 
for by Great Britain, running from IN ova Scola southwesterly, west, 
and northwesterly to Lake Nessessing, thence a west line to the ^lis- 
sissippi ; easterly by the boundary settled between Massachusetts and 
Nova Scotia ; southerly, &c. &c." 

After discussing the report of this committee, Congress adopted 
(March 19, page 138,) a more precise description of the northern 
boundary, in which the northwest angle of Nova Scotia first makes its 
appearance, with even more perspicuity than is found in the treaty it- 
self. 

*' Congress took into consideration the report of the committee of the 
whole, and agreed to the following ultimata: — 1. That the thirteen 
United States are bounded, north by a line to be drawn from the north- 
west angle of Nova Scota, along the highlands which divide those rivers 
which empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from those which 
fall into the Atlantic ocean to the nortluvesternmost head of Connecti- 
cut river, thence, &c. &;c. and east by a line to be drawn along the mid- 
dle of St. John's, from its source to its mouth in the Bay of Fundy, or 
by a line to be settled and adjusted between that part of the State of 
Massachusetts bay, formerly called the province of Maine, and the 
colony of Nova Scotia, agreeably to their respective rights, &c. &c. 

The offer here made of varying the boundary so as to make the St. 
John's river the line from its source to its mouth, has been recently re- 
peated to the British government, but then, as formerl}', declined. The 
alternative proposition was carried into effect, and Massachusetts and 
Nova Scotia left, by the treaty, where their previously existing rights 
placed them. The northwest angle of Nova Scotia is assumed in this 
instruction as the starling point, and this was exactly conformed to by 
the Commissioners who negotiated the treaty, except that they under- 

[ Assembly, No. 215.) 2 



IQ [Assembly 

Jook to define wlial tlial angJe was, and where it could be found. Their 
descriplion of it was accurate, and co-incident with the old boundaries 
of llie two Provinces of Massachusetts and Nova JScotia ; and both 
conform lo the present claim of the United States. 

It IS perfectly clear that there must then have been, and must now 
be a northwest angle of Nova Scotia somewhere. If Nova Scotia 
reached to the North Pole on one side, and the Pacific ocean on the 
other, it would be dilHcult to get to the northwest angle, although there 
would still be one. But with an extent more limited than this, it is only- 
necessary to pursue the northern and western boundaries until they 
ineet, in order to find the angle. Tlic specification therefore in the in- 
struction of Congress, would, of itself, have been sufficient, without the 
super-added descriplion in the treaty ; and this will appear from a re- 
ference lo the limits of Nova Scotia as they existed at the commence- 
ment of the revolutionary war. But it so happens that the addition 
made by the commissioners corresponds even in language with the then 
existing public documents and grants, and shows that they were entire- 
ly familiar with all those papers which have been drawn into the dis- 
cussion at a more recent period. It may not be amiss to take a cur- 
sory glance at the characters and qualifications of the commissioners. 

Dr. Franklin is too well known in the United States to make it ne- 
cessary or expedient to speak of him. His Life is a text book in our 
schools ; and his name, given as it is lo steamboats and stages, and inns 
and banks, and libraries and societies, has made his history universally 
and thoroughly known. 

Mr. Jay was his associate for some time before they were both joined 
by Mr. Adams. The high honor must be given lo him of refusing to 
negotiate with the envoy of Great Britain until the independence of the 
United Stales was acknowledged, and the commission of the British 
Minister changed accordingly. During the lime when the question of 
peace or war remained suspended upon the determination of Great 
Britain to continue or change the credentials which she had issued, his 
responsibility was of the heaviest character, because in this, he differed 
from his usually sagacious and trusted colleague. Dr. Franklin. And 
the reputation of Mr. Jay for firmness and sagacity cannot be fully ap- 
preciated, initil we remember thai the course which he then pursued, 
furnished the basis of the argument by which the Honorable John 
Quincy Adams afterwards vindicated and preserved the American right 
to the fisheries of Newfoundland. In the present dispute respecting 
the boundary, we are met with a repetition of the same idea on the 
part of Great Britain, that the [ndependence of the United States was 
granted in tlie ireaty of 1783 ; and, in both cases, we are indebted lo 
the inflexible sjjjrit of Mr. Jay, for affording us the same ground of in- 
dignant denial which he made amid responsibilities which would have 
shaken a less stoui lieart. 

When Mr. Adams arrived in Paris, it must be mentioned to his ho- 
nor, that I)e look sides promptly with Mr. Jay. But Mr. Adams brought 
also lo the negotiation, an intimate acquaintance with the boundaries 
and history of Massachusetts, derived from his active jjarticipation in 
the aflfairs of the Provmce. He has left a record of this in his corres- 



No. 215.] 11 

pondence. Immediately after his arrival in Paris, (October 31, 1782,) 
he wrote thus to Robert R. J^ivingsion — Spark's Diplomatic Corres- 
pondence, vol. 6, page 437. 

"Yesterday we met Mr. Oswald, at hi.s lodgings; Mr. Jay, J)r. Frank 
lin and myself on one side, and Mr. Oswald, assisted by Mr. .Stvachey, 
a gentleman whom I had the honor to meet in company with Lord 
Howe, upon Staten-Island, in the year 1776, and assisted also by a 
Mr. Roberts, a clerk in some of the public oilices, with books, maps 
and papers, relative to the boundaries. 

" I arrived in a lucky moment for the boundary of Massachusetts, be- 
cause I brought with me all the essential documents relative to that 
object, which are this day to be laid before my colleagues in conference 
at my house, and afterwards before Mr. Oswald." 

And again, page 452: " Tiie Count, (Count de Vergennes) then 
asked me some questions respecting Sagadehock, (now Maine) which I 
answered by showing him llic lecords, which J had in my pocket, par- 
ticularly that of Governor Pownal's solemn act of possession in 1750; 
the grants and settlements of Mount Desert, Machias, and all the other 
townships east of Penobscot river ; the original grant of James the 
First, to Sir William Alexander, of Nova Scotia, in which it is bound- 
ed on St. Croix river; (this grant I had in Latin, French and English ;) 
the dissertations of Governor Shirley and Governor Hutchinson, and 
the authority of Governor Bernard, all showing the right of Massa- 
chusetts to this tract to be incontestable. I added that I did not think 
any British Minister would ever put his hand to a written claim of that 
tract of land, their own national acts were so numerous and so clear 
against them." 

It is impossible that these men should not have known where the 
northwest angle of Nova Scotia was. Where they thought it was, the 
United Slates say it is now. Great Britain has sometimes said that it 
was not to be found any where ; and at other times has placed it at a 
point, beyond which the Province of New-Brunswick (carved out of 
Nova Scotia) has always exercised jurisdiction, which continues, ac- 
cording to the report of Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, to the present 
day ; for they say that the jurisdiction of New-Brunswick reaches to 
the Ristigouche liver, an hundred miles north of where the northwest 
angle is said to be. The practice of Great Britain, therefore, always 
has contradicted her own argument. It is not possible to discard from 
the treaty the plain reference to the then existing boundary of Nova 
Scotia. Wherever its northern and western lines intersected each other, 
there the boundary of the United States commenced ; and yet we find 
eminent British statesmen asserting that the treaty had no regard to 
previously existing lines, but that it adopted a new description altogether. 
Even as late as 1 838, this idea is again repeated in a letter, from 
which the following is an extract : 

Lord Palmer ston to Mr. Stevenson. 

Foreign Office, April 16, 1838. 

[Senate Doc. 1st session 25th Congress — No. 107, page 3.] 
" In answer to the argument which is employed by Mr. Stevenson, 
with respect to the boundaries between the British Possessions and the 



12 [Assembly 

United Slates, the undersigned begs leave to observe, that the treaty 
of 1783, laid down the boundary between the United States and the 
Biitish Possessions, not by rel'erence to the then existing, or to the pre- 
viously existing boundaries of the British Provinces, wiiose independ- 
ence was tlien acknowledged, Init with reference to a geographical de- 
Bcription contained in the treaty itself, &c. &;c." 

Massachusetts and Nova Scotia were contiguous to each other, for 
there was nothing between them. Of course, the northwest angle of 
Nova Scotia, and the northeast angle of Massachusetts were the same 
malhcmatical point ; and the ancient charters clearly demonstrated 
where that point was to be found. 

The charter of Nova Scotia, granted by .Tames the First, to Sir Wil- 
liam Alexander, 1621, with which Mr, Adams was so familiar as to 
carry in his pocket a copy of it in Latin, French and English, ruiis 
thus : 

" Beginning at Cape Sable, &c. &c. to the river, commonly called 
St. CroFx, and to the most remote spring or source, which, from the 
western pari thereof, first mingles with the river aforesaid ; from thence, 
b)' an imaginary direct line which may be conceived to stretch through 
the land, or to run towards the norlh to the nearest road, river or spring, 
emptying itself into the great river of Canada, &c." 

tlpon a comparison of this line with that, Avhich in the treaty is de- 
clared to be the eastern boundary of the United States, it will be found 
to differ only in the following three points : 

1 . It adopts the " western source " of the St. Croix, whereas the 
treaty merely says " the source," as the point from which to run the 
northern line. 

2. It runs the line towards tlie north, and the treaty uses two expres- 
sions, " due north " and " directly north." 

3. It extends the line to the St. Lawrence, and the treaty slops it at 
the intermediate highlands. 

The two first of these differences are of little consequence. In fact, 
they may moro properly be considered as different descriptions of the 
same line, the later in date correcting, by subsequent geographical 
knowledge, the error of the former, than as the adoption of different 
lines. The third difference followed as a necessary consequence, from 
the excision of the northern portion of the line by the annexation of 
that part of the country to Canada, in 17G3, after its conquest. 

The report of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, advances the 
extravagant proposition, that the original grant of Nova Scotia was 
from the source of the St. Croix to the river Chaudiere, thus running a 
northwesterly direction, instead of "towards the north." It may be 
proper to bestow a passing notice upon this pretension. 

The idea is not original with these commissions. It was alluded to 
in the British argument before the King of the Netherlands, as a posi- 
tion which nnght be taken, but they did not assume it. Availing them- 
selves of this hint, and desirous of destroying the identity of the pre- 
sent American claim with the original chartered boinidary of Nova 
Scotia, the commissioners boldly advance ihe doctrine for the three fol- 
lowing reasons ; 



No. 215.] 13 

1. Tlial the Iranslalion of tlie Latin grant justifies the ground. 

2. That the grant calls lo run " ad proximam iiaviun stationcrn," 
which must mean Quebec. 

3. That an ancient map so places the line. 

It is alleged by these commissioners that the words " versus Septen- 
Irionem," in the original Latin grant are not to be strictly construed 
"towards tiie north," because in a preceding passage of the grant, the 
same words arc found as applying to the line from Cape Sable to St 
Mary's Bay, which line, it is admitted, is in a course nearly west; and 
the argument is, that if these words describe a line nearly west in one 
part of the grant, they may do so in another. To furnish a basis for 
this argument, the same liberties are taken with the nilcs of the Latin 
Grammar, that are brought to bear upon ranges of mountains ; both 
are unceremoniously moved out of their established position, in order 
that the theory of the commissioners may have room to stand. It may 
possibly be the case that the translation which they give, was consistent 
with the rules of the Latin tongue, when the "abraded mountains," 
which they ])ut upon their line stood erect ; but it finds no sanction in 
the genius of that language as it was understood by Horace, and Virgil 
and Cicero. 

The following is the extract which they give from the grant. 

" Omncs et singular terras Continentis ac insulas situatas et jaccnles 
in America intra caput sen promontorium communiter Cap de Sable 
appellat. Jacen prope latitudinem quadraginta Irium graduum ant eo 
circa ab equinoctiali linea versus Septentrionem, a quo promontoris 
versus liltus maris tenden ad occidentem ad stationem Sanctae mariae 
navium vulgo Sanctmareis Bay." 

Their literal translation : " All and each of the lands of the conti- 
nent, and the islands situated and lying in America within the head 
land or promontory, commonly called Cape Sable, lying near the for- 
ty-third degree of latitude from the equinoctial line or thereabouts. 
From which promontory stretching westwardly towards the north, by 
the sea shore, to the Naval Station of St. Mary, commonly called St. 
Mary's Bay." — Report, pages 24 and25. 

To separate the words, "versus septentrionem" from " ab equinoc- 
tiali linea" to which they properly belong, and thrust them into the mid- 
dle of the succeeding paragraph is to do violence to all the rules of 
grammar. The plain meaning of the phrase is, " from the equinoctia] 
line towards the north," that is, " northern latitude." 

2. The second reason is that the termination of the line from the 
source of the St. Croix, must be, by the grant of 1621, at some " na- 
vium statio," which the commissioners translate "naval station," or a 
place where ships are accustomed to ride. Quebec, they say, was the 
only naval station on the St. Lawrence, and therefore to Quebec the 
line must go. But they omit to state that these same words are twice 
used in the preceding part of the grant and applied successively to St. 
Mary's Bay" and the Bay of Fundy. To neither of these places can 
or could ever be applied the epithet of " naval station" in the sense of 
the commissioners. Quebec was not then in a situation to be called a 
naval station in the modern acceptance of the term. Selected as a site 



14 [Assembly 

about 1G03, it was iiol begun until 1G08, and then some " rude cottages 
were framed, a lew fields cleared and one or Iwo gardens planted." — 
1 Bancroft, page 23. 

"In 1»320 Champlain began a fort, and in a few years (1624) the 
castle of St. Louis, so long the place of council against the Iroquois 
and against New-England, was durably founded on a commanding 
clilV." — 1 Bancroft, page 29. 

It belonged to France ; and whatever inducement tiiere misht have 
been to make a boundry line terminate at a " naval station" of the same 
country, there could have been no possible motive for its striking the 
St. Lawrence opposite to a post occupied as such by another nation. 

3. Tiie third reason is the existence of an old map made in 1689 by 
Coronelh, a Venetian, which places the boundary hnc of Nova Scotia 
from the St. Croix to the mouth of the Chaudiere opposite to Quebec. 
Where this map was found, does not appear. It was not used in the 
argument before the arbiter; but it is manifesll}' entitled to no confi- 
dence, because it places Nova Scotia on the south instead of the north 
side of the line. 

The reasons against this position of the boundary line of Nova Sco- 
tia are as follows : 

1. In 1663, Charles the Second granted to his brother James, Duke 
of York, the following land, viz : Beginning at a certain place called 
or known by the name of St. Croix adjoining lo New-Scotland in Ame- 
rica ; lo the river of Kennebec and so up, by the shortest course, to the 
river of Canada, northwards. This grant would divide Nova Scotia 
into two separate parts, according to the location of the latter by the 
commissioners ; but if the American line be adopted, the two grants 
are in harmony with each other, lying on opposite sides of a line run- 
ning from the source of the St. Croix, north. 

2. The line is contradictory to all the official acts of the British go- 
vernment, anterior lo the American Revolution and to the maps which 
were recognized as authority. Mitchell's map, for example, made in 
1755 was held in such high esteem thai ihc negotiators of the treaty of 

■'83 were governed entirely by it. Il has been already staled that "Mr. 
Roberts, a clerk in some of ihe public offices" in London, crossed the 
•channel with " books, maps, and papers relative lo the boundaries," 
which were used by the ministers. If then, Mitchell's map was se- 
lected from all these as the most orthodox, and ihe boundarj^ line of 
Nova Scotia was represented upon that map as running due north, it is 
inconceivable thai the true line should liavc gone lo the Chaudiere. 

Mr. Gallatin, after giving a list of 19 dilTerent maps published in 
England between 1763 and 1783, "being all the maps ihal could be 
found after a diligent search both in England and America" sa^^s " in 
every instance the course of the line from the source of the River St. 
Croix is northward ; in every instance that line crosses the River St. 
John and terminates at the highlands in which the rivers tiiat fall into 
the St, Lawrence have their sources ; in every instance, the northwest 
angle of Nova Scotia is laid down on those liighlands and where the 
nortii line terminates ; in every instance, the highlands, from that point 
to the Connecticut river, divide the rivers that fall into the River St, 



No. 215.] 15 

Lawrence iVoni llic Iribulary streams of ihc Iviver Si. .luhii and from 
the other rivers that fall into the Athmtic ocean. 

Mr. Galhilin, also, enumerates four maps published in England be- 
tween the preliminary and dehnitive treaties, (November 17S2and Sep- 
tember 1783,) in all of which " the boundaries of the United States are 
laid down as now claimed by the United States, and are the same with 
those delineated in the preceding maps, as the boundaries of the Pro- 
vinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia." 

Assuming then that the boundary line of Nova Scotia by its original 
charter ran due north as it is laid down in Mitchell's map, we have 
reached one very important state of the investigation ; because this ori- 
ginal line was never changed by the British government, and we are 
thus enabled to see very clearly what is the western boundary of Nova 
Scotia. To find the northwest angle, where the American boundary is 
made to begin by the Treaty of 1783, we have only to ascertain where 
the northern boundary is ; and the solution of the problem must be as- 
certained. If Nova Scotia had a circular boundary like the northern 
part of the State of Delaware, it might have no angle. But as its boun- 
daries are straight lines, its northwest angle can be found with as much 
certainty as one of the corners of a square chamber. Where then is 
or was the northern limit of Nova Scotia? 

By the original charter the Province was bounded on the north by the 
River St. Lawrence, and the northwest angle was, of course, at the 
point where the boundary line from the St. Croix intersected the St. 
Lawrence. It so remained until the termination of the war of 1756. 
Canada having been wrested from France, the king of England in 1763 
chose to remodel his American dominions. In doing this there was 
much political sagacity exhibited. Natural boundaries are the best be- 
tween separate jurisdictions. Where the laws of trade lead men to go^ 
it is best that civil regulations should encourage them to go. From an 
inspection of Mitchell's map it will be seen that the basin of the St. 
Lawrence is not extensive on the southern side. The streams which 
flow into it are short in their course, and must be rapid, because long 
rivers, flowing in an opposite direction, take their rise near their heads ; 
these short and rapid streams were even then occupied by saw mills, 
the lumber from which found its market at Quebec. It was therefore 
highly expedient that the country which traded with Quebec, should be 
placed under the jurisdiction of Canada, and a royal proclamation of 
October, 1 763, wisely enlarged Canada, by describing its southern boun- 
dary as follows, viz : 

"Passing along the highlands which divide the rivers that empty them- 
selves into the said River St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the 
sea and also along the North coast of the Bay Chaleurs and the coast 
of the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape Rosiers." 

In the ensuing month, the boundary of Nova Scotia was for the first 
time changed ; for in November, 1763, Montague Wilmot was appoint- 
ed governor of Nova Scotia, whose boundaries were altered, to con-es- 
pond with the proclamation, viz : 

"To the mouth of the River St. Croix, by the said river to its source,, 
and by a line drawn north from thence to the southern boundary of our 
colony of Quebec." 



16 [Assembly 

Aiui 111 ihe commissions issued in 1767, lo William Campbell, and 
111 17(31, lo Francis Leggpe, Nova Scotia is described as above. 

In 1774, an act uf Parliament, (14tli (Jeorge 3d,) was passed, de- 
scnbnig the boundary of the Province vi Quebec, as follows : 

" Bounded on the south by a line from the Bay of Chaleurs, along 
the higlilands which divide the rivers, which empty themselves into the 
St Lawrence from those which fall into the sea." 

The American claim is now, that the boundary is precisely where 
the original charter of Nova Scotia, and the above mentioned proclama- 
tion and act of Parliament put it. If the southern boundary of Canada 
is not to be fovuid in those documents, where is it to be found ? No 
subsequent legislation of Great Britain has designated it, and it must, 
of necessity, exist tiiere only. If the presient American and Britisii 
claims be tested by these papers, the following will be the result. 

The American line runs from the north coast of the Bay of Chaleurs, 
along highlands which divide rivers which empty themselves into the 
St. Lawrence from those which unite with the St. John's river and then 
fall into tlie sea through the Bay of Fundy. 

The British line requires to be noticed as it was claimed before the 
arbiter and by Featherstonhaugh and Mudge. These lines vary consi- 
derably as an inspection of the maps annexed hereto, will show. 

As it was claimed before the king of the Netherlands, it winds around 
the heads of the streams which How upon one hand into the Aroostook 
and the AUegash (tributaries to the St. John's) and the St. John's, and 
upon the other into the Kennebec and the Penobscot. But from the 
eastern termination of the line to the Bay of Chaleurs there is no at- 
tempt to trace it on the map, or reconcile it with the description of it 
in the proclamation of 1763. That this cannot be the line meant by 
the proclamation and subsequent act of Parliament is manifest from the 
following reasons : 

That the proclamation calls for a range of highlands from the Bay of 
Chaleurs, whereas in the argument before the king of the Netherlands, 
it was not pretended that any such range existed from the Bay of Cha- 
leurs to Mars Hill, the alleged termination of the eastern boundary line 
of the United Stales. 

That such a line would be contradictory to the undevialing practice 
of the British government in maintaining jurisdiction over its own pro- 
vinces, because if that line be correct, all lo the north of it would be- 
long to Canada, and Featherstonhaugh and Mudge say that the juris- 
diction of New-Brunswick extends northward to the bank of the Res- 
tigouche. 

That such a line divides waters which fall into the St. John's from 
others which fall into the sea, and does not approach within from 50 to 
100 miles, those waters which fall into the St. Lawrence. 

The line as proposed to be run by Fealherslonhaugh and Mudge, 
runs along llie southern bank of the Aroostook, and leaves I\^ars Hill, 
for which the British government has so stoutly contended, about 20 
miles within the territory of the United States. Of course, these com- 
missioners disapprove of the former pretensions of Great Britain. It 
remains to be seen whether that government will adiiere lo ils former 



No. 215.] 17 

claim and condemn its commissioners, or adopt their report and con- 
demn the hne which, for so many years and at so much trouble, it has 
hitherto maintained. 

The objections to this line arc, that when extended it strikes the 
South instead of the North coast of the Bay of Chaleurs, which tiie 
proclamation requires, and that it passes along no Highlands at all. 
The geologist has discovered from sundry stones found there, that a 
range of highlands once existed, which arc now abraded. Some of the 
objections to the other line arc also common to this. The map shows 
on the cast of the St. John's the range of Highlands, as projected, is 
co-incident with the bed of the Tobique river. That a river should 
flow along a ridge of the highlands, or even cross it, is not surprising ; 
but that it should abrade a range of hills for no other purpose than to 
put its bed there, is a geological phcnomonon worthy of all admiration. 
The Aroostook, too, has taken the superfluous trouble of crossing and 
recrossing the same range of highlands, for no other cause, apparently, 
than to gratify the guilty and unnatural ambition of flowing along the 
" axis of maximum elevation." 

" If either of these lines be taken to be the true one, the consequence 
is, that the northwest angle of Nova Scotia must be at the intersection 
of it with the north line from the source of the St. Croix. What right 
has the Governor of New-Brunswick then to interfere with the territory 
watered by the Aroostook ? The British argument shows that if this 
land belongs to Great Britain at all, it is because it is within the limits 
of Canada, and utterly beyond the jurisdiction of New-Brunswick, and 
yet with a strange inconsistency between theory and practice, it is 
shown by the former to belong to one Province and by the latter to 
another. Those statesmen who drew up the proclamation of 1763, no 
doubt had Mitchell's map before them, because in a corner of that map 
it is written : 

" This map was undertaken with the approbation and at the request 
of the Lord's Commissioners for trade and plantations, and is chiefly 
composed from draughts, charts and actual surveys of diff'erent parts 
of His Majesty's colonies and plantations in America, great part of 
which have been lately taken by their Lodsliips' orders, and transmit- 
ted to this office bv the Governors of the said colonies and others. 

JOHN POWNALL, Secretary. 
Plantation Office, Feh'ij 13, 1755." 

A map published only eight years previously, " chiefly composed 
from draughts, charts and actual surveys, taken by their Lordships' or- 
ders," and the map itself, " undertaken with the approbation and at the 
request of the Lord's Commissioners," must have been used when the 
new boundary line of Canada was to be designated. As the whole 
country was under the Crown, there was no inducement to enlarge or 
diminish either Province, except for the convenience of irade before 
spoken of, or the establishment of a good natural boundary. If the 
reader will examine the map, beginning at the north coast of the Bay 
of Chaleurs, the eye will without any difiiculty trace a line to the west- 
ward, around the heads of the streams which flow to the northward and 
southward, into the St. Lawrence and the Bay of Fundy or sea. Let 

[Assembly, No. 215.] 3 



18 [Assembly 

him th«n endeavor to follow ihe line according to the claim of the Bri- 
tish governniciit ; and although, beginning at the western side of the 
map, it is possible to find it lor some distance eastwardly around the 
heads of streams which How to the north and south, yet there must be 
a fidl slop at the St. John's river, at which the attempted line is wholly 
lost. A line which is described as running round the heads of streams, 
has no authority for crossing a large and navigable river. 

As a furthei- experiment let the reader carry his view across the St. 
John's and see if he can find any highlands between it and the south 
coast of the Bay of Chalcurs, where Featherslonhaugh and Mudge 
place the line. So far from it there is not a single hill marked there, 
but on the contrary the paths of those rivers running transversely across 
the imaginary range of highlands. It is inconceivable, therefore, that 
the proclamation of 1763, and act of Parliament of 1774, should have 
fixed the southern boundary of Canada where the British government 
now claims it to be. The King would not have adopted an impracti- 
cable line. Upon Mitchell's map, it may be said to be impossible to 
trace any other one than that contended for by the American Govern- 
ment, easily followed by the eye and fulfilling every requirement, ex- 
cept that the rivers flowing to the south empty themselves inlo an arm 
of the sea instead of the body of the sea, and upon this distinction hangs 
the whole British argument. The choice is between the King and 
Parliament's, having considered the Bay of Fundy as a part of the sea, 
or as having very formally adopted a boundary, which an inspection of 
the map must have shewn, could not by any possibility be traced on the 
surface of the earth. 

The northwest angle of Nova Scotia in 1783 was, therefore, suffi- 
ciently apparent. If the Treaty had stopped there, and merely said 
that the boundary of the United Slates should begin at that northwest 
angle, the description would have been precise enough. But in order 
to illustrate their meaning more clearly, the Commissioners proceed to 
a repetition of the language used (except that they say "Atlantic 
ocean" instead of " sea") in the proclamation and ret of Parliament. 
One leg of the angle is in a line drawn " due north" from the source of 
the St. Croix " river," the same originally called for in the grant of 
Nova Scotia, in 1621 ; the other leg is a line drawn " along the high- 
lands which divide those rivers that empty themselves inlo the river St. 
Lawrence from those which fall inlo the Atlanlic ocean," using the 
phraseology (with the exception of a single word) of the proclamation 
of 1763. "Of the intention to make these official acts of the British 
Government the basis of their treaty, there seems to be be no fair ground 
to doubt. 

Applying this description to the claims of the two governments, the 
result will be more apparent if ihe form of an interrogatory be assumed. 
And first of the British. 

From one side of your line do the waters empty themselves into the 
St. Lawrence ? 

No ; nor do they come, in some parts of the line, within one hun- 
dred miles of the Si. Lawrence. 

From the other side do they flow mlo the Atlantic ocean ? 



No. 215.] 19 

Yes ; if llie bays of Sagadahock and Penobscot, be the Atlantic 
ocean. 

If the American government be asked the same questions, the answer 
to the first will be unqualifiedly in the affirmative. 

Yes. 

To the second question, the answer would be 

Yes ; if the Bay of Fundy be the Atlantic ocean. 

Of the two requirements, then, the British claim wholly repudiates 
one, and the American claim satisfies that one. If the British claim 
gratifies the other, the American does also ; and the argument on the 
British side cannot show that the American government fails to gratify 
both calls, without showing at the same time that its own claim gratifies 
neither. 

Much more might be written upon a subject which has drawn to its 
discussion a large contribution from the skilful Statesmen of Great 
Britain and the United States. But it has been the object of the com- 
mittee to give a clear statement of the question, rather than a full argu- 
ment upon its merits. They have consulted a large mass of materials; 
the correspondence between the Secretary of Slate and the British 
Minister; the succinct, but lucid report of Senator Buchanan; speeches 
of members of Congress ; reports of committees of the Legislatures 
of Maine and Massachusetts ; sundry essays written by the honorable 
Caleb Cushing, and some published arguments, the authors of which 
have not openly acknowledged them, although they are known ; the 
report of Messrs Feathers tonhaugh and Mudge ; and lastly, the mas- 
terly review and analysis of that report, written by the venerable diplo- 
matist and stateman Albert Gallatin, whose knowledge upon this subject 
is probably more profound and extensive than that of any man living. 

With regard to the course which ought to be pursued in obtaining a 
settlement of this controversy, the committee do not feel themselves 
qualified to express an opinion. The Constitution of our country has 
wisely placed our foreign relations in the exclusive guardianship of the 
federal government, whose dignity and power are commensurate to the 
duty which it has to perform. It is clear that all reasonable efforts 
should be exhausted to accomplish a pacific and speedy adjustment of 
the difficulty ; and it is also clear that if they should unfortunately fail, 
it will become the duty of the States of the Union to rally around the 
federal government and carry it successfully through the struggle that 
must then come. 

The following resolutions are submitted to the consideration of the 
Senate : 

Resolved, That the Legislature of Maryland entertains a perfect con- 
viction of the justice and validity of the title of the United States, and 
State of Maine, to the full extent of all the territory in dispute between 
Great Britain and the United States. 

Resolved, That the Legislature of Maryland looks to the federal 
government with an entire reliance upon its disposition to bring the con- 
troversy to an amicable and speedy settlement; but if these cfibrts should 
fail, the State of Maryland will cheerfull}'' place herself in the support 
of the federal government, in what will then become its duty to itself 
and the State of Maine. 



20 [Assembly 

Resolved, That after expressing the above opinions, the St ate of 
Maryland feels that it has a right to request the Slate "of Maine to con- 
tribute, by all the means in its power, towards an amicable settlement 
of the dispute upon honorable terms. 

Resolved, That if the British government would acknowledge the 
title of the State of Maine to the territory in dispute, and offer a fair 
equivalent for the passage through it of a military road, it would be a 
reasonable mode of adjusting the dispute, and ought to be satisfactory 
to the State of Maine. 

Resolved, That the Governor be and is hereby requested to transmit 
a copy of this report and these resolutions, to each of the Governors 
of the several States, and to each of the Senators and Representatives 
in Congress from the State of Maryland. 



«46 






^^^'' ' .^ 



< * s • • 



, %,«* .•:^\ %/ ,^% %,.* -1 






-^^ 







^°-', 



^* ... 



^ *"' ^' 'C' K^ .- "X- '■ V^ 

O .0 , » • O, ^^ \/ 4» V 'x. C' <0 »'•« 















> <^ ■A . , . "^ A V . - - <*> 



-^^/ 



x*?-' 



v- V 




-. .,v^ »C 






,\^ . V < * 



-^^0^ 



,> 



^"^^ 



















v-^^- 

c'^'^/.. 



«, 






,0 






•^.>v A-i-' »■ 



%\ --.^..^-^ .5« 








• <« 






■r O -i^ • 












%^^^ ' 
















'*' A^- 









^.* <.^" 






?> > . 1 • 



%<f - 













